Singh, Rashmi B. Halker

Abstract Objective We sought to investigate the patient experience of telemedicine for headache care during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic. Background The use of telemedicine has rapidly expanded and evolved since the beginning of the COVID‐19 pandemic. Telemedicine eliminates the physical and geographic barriers to health care, preserves personal protective equipment, and prevents the spread of COVID‐19 by allowing encounters to happen in a socially distanced way. However, few studies have assessed the patient perspective of telemedicine for headache care. Methods The American Migraine Foundation (AMF) designed a standardized electronic questionnaire to assess the patient experience of telemedicine for headache care between March and September 2020 to help inform future quality improvement as part of its patient advocacy initiative. The date parameters were identified as the emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 disease and the declaration of a national emergency in the United States. The questionnaire was distributed electronically to more than 100,000 members of the AMF community through social media platforms and the AMF email database. Results A total of 1172 patients responded to our electronic questionnaire, with 1098 complete responses. The majority, 1081/1153 (93.8%) patients, had a previous headache diagnosis prior to the telemedicine encounter. A total of 648/1127 (57.5%) patients reported that they had used telemedicine for headache care during the study period. Among those who participated in telehealth visits, 553/647 (85.5%) patients used it for follow‐up visits; 94/647 (14.5%) patients used it for new patient visits. During the telemedicine encounters, 282/645 (43.7%) patients were evaluated by headache specialists, 222/645 (34.4%) patients by general neurologists, 198/645 (30.7%) patients by primary care providers, 73/645 (11.3%) patients by headache nurse practitioners, and 21/645 (3.2%) patients by headache nurses. Only 47/633 (7.4%) patients received a new headache diagnosis from telemedicine evaluation, whereas the other 586/633 (92.6%) patients did not have a change in their diagnoses. During these visits, a new treatment was prescribed for 358/636 (52.3%) patients, whereas 278/636 (43.7%) patients did not have changes made to their treatment plan. The number (%) of patients who rated the telemedicine headache care experience as “very good,” “good,” “fair,” “poor,” and “other” were 396/638 (62.1%), 132/638 (20.7%), 67/638 (10.5%), 23/638 (3.6%), and 20/638 (3.1%), respectively. Detailed reasons for “other” are listed in the manuscript. Most patients, 573/638 (89.8%), indicated that they would prefer to continue to use telemedicine for their headache care, 45/638 (7.1%) patients would not, and 20/638 (3.1%) patients were unsure. Conclusions Our study evaluating the patient perspective demonstrated that telemedicine facilitated headache care for many patients during the COVID‐19 pandemic, resulting in high patient satisfaction rates, and a desire to continue to use telemedicine for future headache care among those who completed the online survey.

Abstract Objective To quantify the proportion of headache‐related grand rounds in academic neurology programs and to compare this with adult neurology residency director views on the need for an increase in headache‐related grand rounds. Background Although headache are among the most prevalent and most burdensome neurologic conditions, headache medicine is often considered underrepresented in neurology departments. Additionally, prior studies have shown that many neurology residency directors feel that training programs do not include an adequate amount of exposure to headache clinics or headache‐related didactics. One important aspect of didactic education in neurology departments is adult neurology grand rounds. Previous publications have evaluated neither the proportion of headache‐related grand rounds in academic neurology departments nor the residency program directors’ views on appropriate amount of headache‐related grand rounds. Our study has attempted to quantify this information to elucidate opportunities to improve practice educational gaps. Methods In this cross‐sectional study, we surveyed adult neurology residency directors (from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education [ACGME] listing of academic adult neurology residency programs) between October 2018 and September 2019. In addition, we used two methods to obtain the proportion of headache‐related grand rounds in neurology: (1) emailing residency directors a questionnaire asking for a list of prior grand rounds topics and (2) an online search for each academic neurology program. Results First, for our grand rounds analysis, headache medicine consisted of 3.7% of the lectures in 2017–2018 and 6.3% of the lectures in 2018–2019 (average of each institution; 17 institutions and 411 total lectures in 2017–2018, 21 institutions and 463 total lectures in 2018–2019). The most common number of lectures on headache medicine for each grand rounds series was zero (for 7 of 17 grand rounds series in 2017–2018 and 7 of 21 in 2018–2019), followed closely by one lecture (for 6 of 17 grand rounds series in 2017–2018 and 6 of 21 in 2018–2019). Second, for our survey, the response rate was 19.3% (29/150). No residency director thought their institution had too many grand rounds dedicated to headache medicine, and 62.1% (18/29) thought they had an adequate amount of headache grand rounds. Within the survey responders, 75.9% (22/29) of adult neurology residency programs have a board‐certified headache specialist at their institution. Conclusions Although most adult neurology residency directors believe that headache is adequately represented in adult neurology grand rounds, headache medicine makes up 4%–6% of all neurology grand rounds. Compared with other neurology subspecialties and the other core ACGME milestones, headache makes up the fewest grand rounds lectures that were assessed in this study.

Background Migraine preventive medications are used to reduce headache frequency, severity, and duration. In patients with chronic migraine (CM), reversion to episodic migraine (EM) is an important treatment goal. Objective To evaluate the effect of fremanezumab on the rate of reversion from CM to EM. Methods This phase 3, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, parallel‐group trial included a 28‐day pretreatment period and a 3‐month treatment period. Patients with CM received subcutaneous fremanezumab quarterly (675 mg at baseline) or monthly (675 mg at baseline; 225 mg at Weeks 4 and 8), or placebo. Post hoc analyses evaluated the proportion of patients who reverted from CM to EM, defined as either a reduction to an average of <15 headache days per month during the 3‐month treatment period or a reduction to <15 headache days per month in all 3 months of the treatment period. Results This analysis included data from 1088 CM patients (quarterly, n = 366; monthly, n = 365; placebo, n = 357). More fremanezumab‐treated patients with CM reverted to EM using either the monthly average number of headache days criteria for reversion (quarterly: 50.5% [185/366], P = .108; monthly: 53.7% [196/365], P = .012; vs placebo: 44.5% [159/357]) or the monthly headache day count at Months 1, 2, and 3 criteria for reversion (quarterly: 31.2% [114/366], P = .008; monthly: 33.7% [123/365], P = .001; vs placebo: 22.4% [80/357]). Patients with CM who reported previous topiramate or onabotulinumtoxinA use, concomitant preventive medication use, or medication overuse were less likely to revert to EM. Conclusions Fremanezumab may offer the benefit of reversion from CM to EM, based on a reduction in the number of headache days over 3 months of treatment.

On March 11, 2020, the infection caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) virus was declared a pandemic. Throughout this pandemic, healthcare professionals (HCPs) have experienced difficulties stemming from poor communications, resource scarcity, lack of transparency, disbelief, and threats to the safety of their loved ones, their patients, and themselves. As part of these hardships, negative statements have been heard repeatedly. This paper describes 11 scenarios of unhelpful and dysfunctional messages heard by the authors and their colleagues during the COVID‐19 pandemic, reported to us by a combination of peers, administrative leadership, and the public. We explain why not to use such messaging, and we suggest more helpful and compassionate expressions based upon recommendations published by scientific organizations and well‐established psychological principles. The first 10 scenarios discussed include (1) lack of understanding regarding the extent of the pandemic; (2) shaming over not seeing patients in person; (3) lack of clear and consistent communication from leadership on pandemic‐related practice changes; (4) opinions that personal protective equipment (PPE) use by HCPs causes fear or is unnecessary; (5) forcing in‐person care without appropriate PPE; (6) the risk of exposure to asymptomatic individuals as it relates to opening clinics; (7) media gag orders; (8) pay and benefit reductions; (9) spreading of misinformation about the COVID‐19 pandemic; and (10) workload expectations. The 11th scenario addresses HCPs’ psychological and physical reactions to this challenging and prolonged stressful situation. We close by discussing the need for support and compassion at this difficult and unpredictable time and by offering suggestions to foster resilience and feelings of self‐efficacy among HCPs.

Objective To summarize the current literature on non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drug and corticosteroid use during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic, recognizing that these are commonly used treatments in the field of headache medicine. Background The use of non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs and corticosteroids in patients during the COVID‐19 pandemic has been a controversial topic within the medical community and international and national health organizations. Lay press and social media outlets have circulated opinions on this topic despite the fact that the evidence for or against the use of these medications is sparse. In the field of headache medicine, these medications are used commonly and both patients and clinicians may have questions or hesitations pertaining to their use during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Methods A detailed search of the scientific and popular literature was performed. Results There is limited literature pertaining to the safety of non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs and corticosteroids during the COVID‐19 pandemic. To date, there are no clear scientific data that preclude the use of non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs in the general population who may acquire COVID‐19 or in those acutely infected with the virus. Several health organizations have concluded that treatment with corticosteroids during active infection should be avoided due to concerns of prolonged viral shedding in the respiratory tract and the lack of survival benefit based on the data from past coronaviruses and influenza virus; specific exceptions exist including treatment for underlying asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, septic shock, and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Conclusion Scientific information regarding the COVID‐19 pandemic is constantly evolving, and limited or contradictory information can lead to confusion for both patients and clinicians. It is recommended that prior to prescribing non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs and steroids for the treatment of headache, clinicians have open discussions with their patients about the potential risks and benefits of using these medications during the COVID‐19 pandemic. This manuscript summarizes the currently available evidence and understanding about these risks and benefits to help clinicians navigate such discussions.

Objective To outline strategies for the treatment of migraine which do not require in‐person visits to clinic or the emergency department, and to describe ways that health insurance companies can remove barriers to quality care for migraine. Background COVID‐19 is a global pandemic causing widespread infections and death. To control the spread of infection we are called to observe “social distancing” and we have been asked to postpone any procedures which are not essential. Since procedural therapies are a mainstay of headache care, the inability to do procedures could negatively affect our patients with migraine. In this manuscript we review alternative therapies, with particular attention to those which may be contra‐indicated in the setting of COVID‐19 infection. Design/Results The manuscript reviews the use of telemedicine visits and acute, bridge, and preventive therapies for migraine. We focus on evidence‐based treatment where possible, but also describe “real world” strategies which may be tried. In each section we call out areas where changes to rules from commercial health insurance companies would facilitate better migraine care. Conclusions Our common goal as health care providers is to maximize the health and safety of our patients. Successful management of migraine with avoidance of in‐person clinic and emergency department visits further benefits the current urgent societal goal of maintaining social distance to contain the COVID‐19 pandemic.

Objective To evaluate the efficacy of ubrogepant on patient‐reported functional disability, satisfaction with study medication, and global impression of change. Background Ubrogepant is a small‐molecule, oral calcitonin gene‐related peptide receptor antagonist indicated for the acute treatment of migraine. In 2 phase 3 trials (ACHIEVE I and II), ubrogepant demonstrated efficacy vs placebo on the 2 co‐primary endpoints of headache pain freedom and absence of the most bothersome migraine‐associated symptom at 2 hours post dose for the 50 and 100 mg doses. Patient‐reported outcomes, such as functional disability, satisfaction, and patient global impression of change, can provide additional evidence of the efficacy of an acute treatment for migraine on clinically meaningful and patient‐relevant outcomes. Methods ACHIEVE I and ACHIEVE II were multicenter, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, parallel‐group, single‐attack trials in adults (18‐75 years) with migraine. In ACHIEVE I, participants were randomized 1:1:1 to placebo or ubrogepant 50 or 100 mg; in ACHIEVE II, participants were randomized 1:1:1 to placebo or ubrogepant 25 or 50 mg to treat a migraine attack with moderate or severe headache pain. Participants rated ability to perform daily activities on the Functional Disability Scale, before dosing and at 1, 2, 4, and 8 hours after the initial dose; satisfaction with study medication at 2 and 24 hours; and impression of overall change in migraine on the Patient Global Impression of Change scale at 2 hours. In prespecified analyses for each trial, each outcome was compared between each ubrogepant dose group and the relevant placebo group. Data were pooled from the ubrogepant 50 mg and placebo groups of the 2 trials in a post hoc analysis. Results In ACHIEVE I, 559 participants were randomized to placebo, 556 to ubrogepant 50 mg, and 557 to ubrogepant 100 mg; in ACHIEVE II, 563 were randomized to placebo, 561 to ubrogepant 25 mg, and 562 to ubrogepant 50 mg. At 2 hours post dose, significantly higher proportions of ubrogepant‐treated participants vs placebo‐treated participants reported being able to function normally (ACHIEVE I: ubrogepant 50 mg, 40.6% [171/421], P = .0012 vs placebo; ubrogepant 100 mg, 42.9% [192/448], P < .0001 vs placebo; placebo, 29.8% [136/456]; ACHIEVE II: ubrogepant 25 mg, 42.6% [185/434], P = .0015 vs placebo; ubrogepant 50 mg, 40.5% [188/464], P = .0118 vs placebo; placebo, 34.2% [156/456]; pooled 50 mg, 40.6% [359/885], vs pooled placebo, 32.0% [292/912]; P < .0001), were satisfied/extremely satisfied with study medication (ACHIEVE I: 50 mg, 36.3% [147/405], P < .0001 vs placebo; 100 mg, 35.8% [149/416], P = .0002 vs placebo; placebo, 24.1% [104/432]; ACHIEVE II: 25 mg, 35.1% [141/402], P = .0018 vs placebo; 50 mg, 37.8% [163/431], P < .0001 vs placebo; placebo, 24.8% [106/427]; pooled ubrogepant 50 mg, 37.1% [310/836], vs pooled placebo, 24.5% [210/859]; P < .0001), and indicated that their migraine was much/very much better on the Patient Global Impression of Change scale (ACHIEVE I: 50 mg, 34.4% [103/299], P = .0006 vs placebo; 100 mg, 34.3% [102/297], P = .0009 vs placebo; placebo, 22.0% [69/313]; ACHIEVE II: 25 mg, 34.1% [124/364], P < .0001 vs placebo; 50 mg, 33.4% [131/392], P = .0002 vs placebo; placebo, 20.7% [78/376]; pooled 50 mg, 33.9% [234/691], vs pooled placebo, 21.3% [147/689]; P < .0001). Conclusions A significantly higher proportion of participants treated with ubrogepant were able to function normally, were satisfied with the study medication, and reported clinically meaningful improvement compared with those receiving placebo. The results reinforce the potential benefits of ubrogepant on patient‐centered outcomes in the acute treatment of migraine.